4.7 Article

Methodological improvements in the risk analysis of an urban hydrogen fueling station

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 257, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120545

关键词

Hydrogen refueling station; Fire risk analysis; BRANN; Parametric uncertainty; Computational efficiency; Quantitatively risk analysis

资金

  1. Natural Sciences Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canada Research Chair (Tier I) Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Fuel Cell Vehicles are going to be introduced in domestic cities of China, which will require urban Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS). Such urban refueling center would be a public concern given their location in the congested area and the potential hydrogen release and fire risk. Risk analysis of possible fire scenarios is an efficient approach to identify, evaluate, and mitigate the risk from such hydrogen fire accidents. However, due to lack of availability of data, there still exists high parametric uncertainty in the scenario envisaging risk analysis. It is crucial to minimize this parametric uncertainty to have robust hydrogen fire risk analysis. If minimizing the corresponding uncertainty, traditional procedure could bring much computational intensity. This paper proposes a robustly integrated procedure of the fire risk analysis for the urban HRS to reduce the uncertainty and the computational intensity. This newly proposed procedure integrates the Bayesian Regularization Artificial Neural Network (BRANN)-based nonintrusive method with the consequence modeling and statistical approaches. A case study is conducted to demonstrate the scenario-related parametric uncertainty effect and the feasibility of the procedure. The results indicate 300 simulation inputs are the optimal trade-off between the BRANN model's generalization capacity and computational intensity. With such number of simulations, the BRANN model could achieve the R-2 = 0.98. In addition, the proposed procedure could reduce the parametric uncertainty and computation cost by 97% and 99%, respectively. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据